Global Warming alarmists' scam continues to come undone.

Yes, Gore's involvement with GW is easily documented, but isn't it more fun to just make fun of him personally? I mean, had he displayed ANY sort of a personality back in 2000, we would not be here at all right now.

But once the pressure was off, he was able to more fully devote himself to conveying the ideas that he and so many others have been diligently working on to improve the quality of life for us and our future generations. It's a lofty goal, and the average person has very little realistic hope of understanding it even in a small sense. I read the three links you posted (thanks so much for those), and the primary things I came away with were 1) the magnitude of the problem and the expense of solving it, 2) The massive amount of land that would be required for containment, and 3) the complicated nature of the information, and how unlikely it is that most people will truly be able to understand what is even happening and why it is a problem.

We're going to need someone who can dumb it down, so that more people won't just feel overwhelmed and promptly just go stick their heads back in the sand. Gore tried to do just that with his movie, and I applaud that effort. People can't care about something that they can't understand. Of the three links you posted, the second was the most useful to me because I am not a scientist, and I liked the question and answer format.
We don't all have time to become scientists, but that doesn't mean we can't at least understand the nature of the problem, and why "those who can" must.

I don't have any idea who JQ is, but he joined here last YEAR and only started posting prolifically a few weeks ago. As annoying as he is, he has got us talking, and I personlly have benefitted from that. Thanks to all of you who have shared your knowledge so generously. We have a long rich history of making silk purses out of sow's ears here.

[quote=mercurialbliss;759003]Well, the fact that you didn't answer any of the question makes me suspicous.
BTW, the specific topic is the 'carbon offsets' , which some of the Al Gore lemmings sopped up with a spoon.
Here's an interesting article about the little scam known as ' carbon offsets'.

A growing number of organizations, corporations, cities, and individuals are seeking to protect the climate—or at least claim bragging rights for protecting the climate. Rather than take the arduous step of significantly cutting their own emissions of carbon dioxide, many in the ranks of the environmentally concerned are paying to have someone else curtail air pollution or develop "renewable" energy sources (see BusinessWeek.com, 2/1/07, "Ethanol: Too Much Hype—and Corn "). Carbon offsets, as the most common variety of these deals is known, have become one of the most widely promoted products marketed to checkbook environmentalists.

Done carefully, offsets can have a positive effect and raise ecological awareness. But a close look at several transactions—including those involving the Oscar presenters, Vail Resorts, and the Seattle power company—reveals that some deals amount to little more than feel-good hype. When traced to their source, these dubious offsets often encourage climate protection that would have happened regardless of the buying and selling of paper certificates. One danger of largely symbolic deals is that they may divert attention and resources from more expensive and effective measures.

The market for carbon offsets in the U.S. could be as high as $100 million, according to researchers' best guesses. That's up from next to nothing just a couple of years ago. One reason for this growth is that the U.S. remains one of the few industrialized countries that hasn't ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a global agreement setting emission limits by nation. In the absence of a mandatory national cap, some Americans have begun taking action on their own, but without widely recognized standards as to what constitutes a valid offset. As long as there are willing buyers and sellers, almost anything goes. "Right now it's a no-man's land out there," says Jennifer Martin of the nonprofit Center for Resource Solutions in San Francisco.

Hollywood celebrated environmental activism at this year's Academy Awards, and not just by giving an Oscar to the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Truth. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences promoted the show itself having "gone green," by means of a variety of initiatives. One element: Each performer and presenter received a glass statue representing the elimination of the amount of greenhouse gas associated with a celebrity lifestyle over the course of a year. The offsets were issued by TerraPass Inc., a two-year-old for-profit company in San Francisco that identifies climate-protection efforts and, for a fee, gives its customers the opportunity to buy a piece of the environmental action. Each Oscar favor represented 100,000 pounds of emission reductions drawn from TerraPass' portfolio of offset projects.

One of the largest in its portfolio is a sprawling garbage dump outside of Springdale, Ark., from which TerraPass has purchased thousands of tons of gas reductions. The vast sloping mound of the Tontitown landfill rises near stands of bare-limbed hickory and oak trees, with the blue Ozark foothills in the background. The decomposing trash generates methane, a gas 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the earth's atmosphere, melting glaciers and raising ocean levels. Waste Management Inc., (WMI ) the huge garbage processor that operates the facility, tends nearly 90 wells dotting the trash mountain, each giving off a barely audible hiss as it sucks methane from the depths of the landfill and delivers the gas to a single towering flare. Once torched, the gas is released into the atmosphere as less-damaging co2. But company officials and Arkansas environmental regulators say Waste Management began to burn methane, and continues to do so, for reasons having nothing to do with TerraPass' offsets.

'ICING ON THE CAKE'
Concerned that methane might be contaminating groundwater beneath the landfill, Waste Management first floated the idea for a gas-collection system in early 1999. Arkansas regulators urged the company to pursue this remedy. In 2001 the state increased its pressure by imposing a requirement for "corrective action" at the Tontitown facility. Waste Management promised to make the methane flare operational by late 2001. After probes subsequently detected methane levels exceeding allowable levels, Dennis John Burks, then chief of the Solid Waste Management Div. of the Arkansas Environmental Quality Dept., wrote to Waste Management on June 27, 2001, saying that the state "strongly urges WM to bring the newly installed Tontitown Landfill gas extraction system online as soon as possible."

Asked about Waste Management's response, Gerald Delavan, a supervisor at the Arkansas environmental agency, says: "It started out as a voluntary effort" by the company. "But it ended up being guided by corrective action,'" imposed by the state. Wes Muir, a Waste Management spokesman, says: "We felt a gas collection system was the most effective way to deal with this.... It was a voluntary process."

Another Inconvenient Truth

[quote]That's exactly my point. I'll admit I was confused as to why the story of Gore's sister dying from lung cancer and the small discussion of the tobacco industry was in the movie. I didn't see what it had to do with the subject at hand, but it's still an important documentary because of the attention the subject received. I encourage everyone to watch it, whether they believe in global warming or not. What I understood from watching the movie and talking to my friend in the industry is that while there is still so much we don't know about, we've discovered there are things we CAN do with a little effort and we are responsible for that knowledge.

I don't encourage anybody to watch it.
It's propaganda pap for the masses , not at all balanced in it's presentation.
I guess it takes a little commons senses to realize when you watch a
' documentary ' by Al Gore, or by Michael Moore, you're getting played.
You'd say the same about a 'documentary ' on GW funded by Exxon Mobil.

If you want to learn about the subject. READ.

As I've brilliantly and famously stated here, there are 3 EXCELLENT blogs, which offer a WIDE VARIETY of viewpoints and input from many scientists.

[quote=JQblonde;759032]Hey, something that's actually worth discussing: Is it up to the individual to determine how the climate and earth is protected or certain organizations, corporations, or the government? Is it wrong for these organizations and corporations to make money from their proposed measures? If they do, it doesn't mean it's a scam, as I mentioned before. Maybe we should look at this as a growing industry, one that will offer opportunities for individuals worldwide as well as the ultimate goal of keeping the planet livable for as long as possible. What a great way to interest more youth in the sciences and their environment.

Are there individuals who would see this a potential for scamming purposes? Sure, but you'll find scam artists everywhere. Doesn't mean global warming itself is a scam.

[quote]You're missing my point as usual. Most people I know who have seen AIT were motivated to read about the subject whether or not they agreed with anything or everything in the film. It's an excellent way to get the discussion rolling, ask questions, and find answers that maybe weren't answered in the film.

Once again, you're insistent on making this a political discussion. I've read the blogs and they're not nearly as balanced as you've presented them. If you want to ignore what others post for reading and discussion, fine. Then don't be surprised when others won't take you seriously.

I think you're missing the point.

AGW or not ,it's certainly correct that these types industires are the wave of the future. < one , of many reasons, I'm not all jacked up all the GW hype.>


The 'scam ' part comes in as follows.

Lets' say you mercurial bliss, are an energy glutton.

You can do two things to ease your conscience.

Cut back. In that case there is net reduction in the world's carbon footprint.

Or you can purchase a carbon offset from a company , which was already cutting back on carbon in which case there is no net reduction.

And that's if it's on the up and up.

I just don't see any realistic way of enforcing this or making sure the carbon does offset on a one to one basis.

[quote=mercurialbliss;759056]Fair point.


[quote=mercurialbliss;759056]Of course it's a politcal discussions . Sheesh.

Please expound on your comments about the blogs and lack of balance. I find among the 3, including the comments, most schools of thought are represented.

It depends on whether or not the offset funders are responsible enough to make sure that the projects are actually in working order and dirty power isn't going being released and going back into the market or subsidizing efforts that would have been taken anyway. Do the research, make sure the smaller companies are of high quality and well-screened. It's an investment like anything else and people usually shop around to find the best investment for their money.

...she said affirming her bleeding heart liberal creds.

What do you think the chances of THAT happening are?

Better question, what are the chances that some clever entrepeneur will come up with a way of making money off this without having to deliver the service?

Alot of thes companies are ALREADY using highly future value accounting where you buy offsets TODAY for carbon savings which will be made in the future.

So think about , I get 100 bucks from you, for a promise to do something in the future. See any problems there??

[quote]And where did I mention my political affilation on this thread? That's right, it's not mentioned anywhere. Nice try.
Jesus, I already addressed this. Is there a chance? Yes. Does that mean we need to be careful about where we invest our money? Yes. Does it mean they're all crooks? No.
There is some disagreement about what constitutes a quality offset and this is where the discernment must kick in for the individual. I'll say it more time. DO YOUR RESEARCH. If you don't want to do it, then don't. I've already proven i'm not an alarmist(your favourite word) by stating your should DO YOUR RESEARCH before investing your money in anything.

So now that i've shot your entire argument to shit, i'll retire from this thread and continue my intended sabbatical.

Hm, sounds kinda like a grant.

I have an apple for you.

Thanks for being who you are.

I've avoided this thread, having long since mastered the mystic art of knowing what some LPSG threads will contain without even looking at them. But I took a peek just for the hell of it, and I was wrong. There's unsuspected gold here, maybe even on every page. And perhaps in every post. I don't know, conceivably I struck the mother lode with the first message I read; but it's just too perfect. I don't think I've ever been on another forum where anyone thought that being tagged anti-something or "marginalized" reminded him of prewar Germany. Go ahead, say it - "Bush = Hitler". Appreciate its cathartic, if not actual, value.

There's other material in this particular post too, albeit eclipsed by the outrageousness of that "prewar Germany" trash. Fancying that "degraded" means "destroyed", for instance, or that snopes is authoritative - it's just some guy you don't know putting stuff up on a website. Pure gold, every bit of it.

But as for me, I consider statements like the "Germany" one to be obscenities. When you get bundled off to those Halliburton-built concentration camps - you know, the ones which don't exist - then it won't be an obscenity, it will be fact. Until then, don't waste too much energy wondering why you aren't taken seriously. Meanwhile, I'll be off. My cardiologist has rationed me to reading a maximum of one grotesque obscenity per day. Carry on, all ...

HAHAHA. But seriously. Those blubbery little bastards.